Just for the record

[Valkenar]

I think Obama's drone policy and general judicial approach is crap, and I wouldn't vote for him again because of it. It still seems silly to bother pointing out since I'm preaching to the choir, but many here seems to think I always give liberals a pass. Maybe you guys should start posting unmitigated praise for Obama for me to oppose.

[Jason Rees]

[jorvik]

But,But ........he got the Nobel Peace prize

[Bill Glasheen]

many here seems to think I always give liberals a pass. Maybe you guys should start posting unmitigated praise for Obama for me to oppose.

Here's an interesting one for you, Justin.

Rand Paul's Drone Rant

Give Rand Paul credit for theatrical timing. As a snow storm descended on Washington, the Kentucky Republican's old-fashioned filibuster Wednesday filled the attention void on Twitter and cable TV. If only his reasoning matched the showmanship.

Shortly before noon, Senator Paul began a talking filibuster against John Brennan's nomination to lead the CIA. The tactic is rarely used in the Senate and was last seen in 2010. But Senator Paul said an "alarm" had to be sounded about the threat to Americans from their own government. He promised to speak "until the President says, no, he will not kill you at a café." He meant by a military drone. He's apparently serious, though his argument isn't.

Senator Paul had written the White House to inquire about the possibility of a drone strike against a U.S. citizen on American soil. Attorney General Eric Holder replied that the U.S. hasn't and "has no intention" to bomb any specific territory. Drones are limited to the remotest areas of conflict zones like Pakistan and Yemen. But as a hypothetical Constitutional matter, Mr. Holder acknowledged the President can authorize the use of lethal military force within U.S. territory.

This shocked Senator Paul, who invoked the Constitution and Miranda rights. Under current U.S. policy, Mr. Paul mused on the floor, Jane Fonda could have been legally killed by a Hellfire missile during her tour of Communist Hanoi in 1972. A group of noncombatants sitting in public view in Houston may soon be pulverized, he declared.

Calm down, Senator. Mr. Holder is right, even if he doesn't explain the law very well. The U.S. government cannot randomly target American citizens on U.S. soil or anywhere else. What it can do under the laws of war is target an "enemy combatant" anywhere at anytime, including on U.S. soil. This includes a U.S. citizen who is also an enemy combatant. The President can designate such a combatant if he belongs to an entity—a government, say, or a terrorist network like al Qaeda—that has taken up arms against the United States as part of an internationally recognized armed conflict. That does not include Hanoi Jane.

Such a conflict exists between the U.S. and al Qaeda, so Mr. Holder is right that the U.S. could have targeted (say) U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki had he continued to live in Virginia. The U.S. killed him in Yemen before he could kill more Americans. But under the law Awlaki was no different than the Nazis who came ashore on Long Island in World War II, were captured and executed.

The country needs more Senators who care about liberty, but if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he's talking about.

Well guess what, Justin? This unsigned (????) OPINION piece in the WSJ generated 786 comments - almost 100 percent negative. Mine was one of them, and I was not gentle. Never in my life have I seen the WSJ OPINION section publish something so anti-libertarian, nor have I seen the almost universal condemnation by its readership.

There's more. About a week after Dr. Paul's marathon filibuster - from which he successfully got his promise from the president IN WRITING not to harm citizens on U.S. soil with drones - we get this.

Rand Paul Tops Field in Poll of Conservatives

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky narrowly won a straw poll of thousands of conservatives Saturday at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference.



Mr. Paul, listed on the ballot with 23 other political figures, picked up 25% of the vote, CPAC organizers announced Saturday evening. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio was a close second-place pick, with 23%. Former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum came in third, with 8% of the vote.

Mr. Paul’s victory was fitting for a conference that tends to draw young GOP activists with a libertarian streak. More than half of the nearly 3,000 who voted were ages 18-25.

{snip}

Oh my...



Understand the preferences here, Justin. The young Dr. Paul is almost as quintessentially libertarian as you get in the group of individuals who choose to run Republican. Rick Santorum - the gentleman who came in a distant third - is the classic bible belt social conservative.

Here's a good example of a written letter to the WSJ about their editorial.

Regarding your editorial "Rand Paul's Drone Rant" (March 7): The problem isn't simply the president's ability to kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, which everyone acknowledges may be an important tool of the commander in chief if he is faced with an immediate threat and no practical ability to effect a capture. The problem is that the president would like to determine these definitions at his sole discretion (and the leaked white paper suggests that "immediate threat" and "ability to capture" could mean anything he decides those terms mean) and doesn't want to acknowledge that his actions may be limited by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees due process to all U.S. citizens.

Forget the specifics of today's situation. Mr. Paul's most important point is that once this precedent is set, it can be expanded and subject to misuse in the future. Who will be president in 20 years? How do we know he won't broadly define the country's enemies as his own political opponents? Even the current administration has released memos defining potential terrorists as people who are pro-life, own guns or publicly advocate adherence to the Constitution. The Republican establishment has once again showed itself to be nothing but shortsighted careerists.

Richard Masson
Lexington, KY

- Bill

[Glenn]

The President needs to be careful or he will end up with international calls for his arrest for war crimes like the last President has had.

The young Dr. Paul is almost as quintessentially libertarian as you get in the group of individuals who choose to run Republican

Question Bill, why is that Libertarians with any name recognition always run as Republicans? That Nolan chart you like was created by the founder of the Libertarian Party to try to illustrate a separation that would justify his forming a party separate from the Republicans, yet top Libertarians always running as Republicans defeats that goal, and contributes to the public not being able to tell the two parties apart. It would seem that Libertarians need to figure out whether they want to truly be a functional and influential third party or to redirect the Republican Party.

Speaking of parties, as a moderate independent who is opposed to parties I am pleased to see like-minded works finally coming to print. The new book by long-time Republican Congressional aide Mike Lofgren is particularly interesting.

There was a time when perfectly rational people with a grasp of economics and foreign policy controlled the G.O.P. How did the party of Lincoln become the party of lunatics? That is what this book aims to answer. Fear not, the Dems come in for their share of tough talk — they are timid shadow of Jefferson and FDR.

Mike Lofgren was once a proud Republican. In the early eighties, he came from Ohio for what he thought would be a short stint on Capitol Hill. Last summer (2011) he finally stepped down, exasperated by the circus of the debt-ceiling debate. He channeled his frustration into an incisive indictment of Washington, which was posted on Truthout and read by millions.

The Party is Over is a rousing manifesto for the growing number of Americans who are disgusted with politics and fed up with the pandering to corporate interests. Money has corroded Washington so completely that banks, defense contractors, and the multinationals routinely shoehorn their corporate wish lists into every bill, and it is virtually impossible to get anything done.

Lofgren is a refreshingly skeptical insider who understands how the system works, and knows its dirty secrets. He offers clear suggestions for how to break through the gridlock; let’s hope there are enough grownups left in Washington to listen.

Definitely adding this to my must-read list...I should be able to get to it in about 2-3 years

[Bill Glasheen]

Question Bill, why is that Libertarians with any name recognition always run as Republicans?

Always is a strong word, Glenn.

Today's Democratic party is beholden to the fiscal liberals, a.k.a. "wealth redistributionists." That's completely incongruent with libertarian fiscal thinking. Consequently they often cannot find a home. Meanwhile the Republican party's tent has been big enough to include the likes of Ron Paul alongside Rick Santorum.

The closest you get to a libertarian-leaning Democrat is the "Blue Dog Democrat" types you find in Virginia. This state produces a lot of them.

There was a time when perfectly rational people with a grasp of economics and foreign policy controlled the G.O.P. How did the party of Lincoln become the party of lunatics? That is what this book aims to answer. Fear not, the Dems come in for their share of tough talk — they are timid shadow of Jefferson and FDR.

I'm calling bullsheet.

I know Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson never was anything like a Democrat. Go back and look at the Nolan Chart I like to share.

.......... Nolan Chart

He's pretty much what I am - libertarian lite.

- Bill

[Glenn]

So a late-20th Century Libertarian decided to place Jefferson's image where he did on that chart, so what? You are trying to pidgin-hole someone from the 18th Century into a party that did not exist until 1971.

Which brings us to your apparent dismissal of the entire book because it includes Jefferson with the Democrats, even though the Democratic Party is called "the party of Jefferson". Jefferson co-founded the Democratic-Republican Party which went on to become the Democratic Party, and his connection to the Democratic Party is not trivial.

Democratic-Republicans split over the choice of a successor to President James Monroe, and the party faction that supported many of the old Jeffersonian principles, led by Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, became the Democratic Party

The Democratic Party is often called "the party of Jefferson,"[22][23][24] while the modern Republican Party is often called "the party of Lincoln."

Tracing the lineage of modern Democrats back to Jefferson is just as legitimate as tracing the lineage of modern Republicans back to Lincoln. It is no coincidence that the major annual fundraising events are called the "Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner" for the Democrats and the "Lincoln-Reagan Day Dinner" for the Republicans.

Here is a Republican blog's take on the Democratic Party's heritage, from 2011:

The Party of Jefferson and Jackson without Mr. Jackson

The Democratic Party has been in business for nearly as long as The United States has been in business independently, rather than as a subsidiary of Great Britain, Inc. It has succeeded to continue on, despite its recent Post WW II, Leftist deracination. It has done so as an alliance between intellectual (Jeffersonian) thinkers and proletariat, salt-of-the-Earth working people. These working Americans are the Jacksonians.

This alliance gave the Democrats a powerful combination of weapons with which they could bludgeon foes. The Jeffersonian Wing gave the party a sense of intellectual engagement and ideological “fashion.” It kept them on the cutting edge of modernity.

The Jacksonians gave them things more visceral, real, and emotional. The Jacksonians came to be legion. They gave the Democrats a quantity that is a quality all its own. They gave the party grounding in reality. They gave it something else, more important. They gave the Democratic Party a culture and a soul. Norman Rockwell painted Jacksonian Democrats.

Now the Jeffersonians have deliberately attenuated that connection between the two. They now seem embarrassed to have Jacksonians around the table at The Annual Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner. People with a culture and a soul cling to things. They are the Grass Roots to whom intelligent leaders of political movements needed to carry their message. But as Walter Russell Mead points out in his famous essay “The Jacksonian Tradition,” they do certain things that quite frankly scare the modern incarnation of the Jeffersonian Democrat.

It goes on to discuss how the Republicans could win over the Jacksonians in 2012.

At any rate, the point is that Lofgren's book is not incorrect in bringing up the Jeffersonian heritage of the Democratic Party. And your statements actually agree with Lofgren's assessment that the modern Democrat's are not living up to Jefferson's legacy.

[Jason Rees]

Just from what I have read about Jefferson (no small amount), I have to say I have a hard time picturing him as a fiscal conservative. That said, I think he would be disgusted by the political parties of today, the groupthink, political correctness, and identity politics.

[Bill Glasheen]

Sorry, guys, but this graduate of Mr. Jefferson's University disagrees. Perhaps you should look up "states' rights" and how that fits on a 2-dimensional political spectrum. After Obama's federal hijacking of our health care system - voted for *only* by Congressional Democrats - do you *really* see Democrats fighting for states' rights? ROTFLMAO

The Democratic-Republican Party was the political party organized by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791-93. It stood in opposition to the Federalist Party and controlled the Presidency and Congress, and most states, from 1801 to 1824, during the First Party System. It split after the 1824 presidential election into two parties: the Democratic Party and the short-lived National Republican Party (later succeeded by the Whig Party, many of whose adherents eventually founded the modern Republican Party).

Most contemporaries called it the Republican Party. Today, political scientists typically use the hyphenated version while historians usually call it the "Republican Party" or the Jeffersonian Republicans, to distinguish it from the modern Republican Party, which was founded in 1854 and named after Jefferson's party.

The organization formed first as an "Anti-Administration" secret meeting in the national capital (Philadelphia) to oppose the programs of Secretary for the Treasury Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson needed to have a nationwide party to counteract the Federalists, a nationwide party organized by Hamilton. Foreign affairs took a leading role in 1794-95 as the Republicans vigorously opposed the Jay Treaty with Britain, which was then at war with France. Republicans saw France as more democratic after its revolution, while Britain represented the hated monarchy. The party denounced many of Hamilton's measures (especially the national bank) as unconstitutional.

The party was strongest in the South and weakest in the Northeast; it favored states' rights and the primacy of the yeoman farmers. Republicans were deeply committed to the principles of republicanism, which they feared were threatened by the supposed monarchical tendencies of the Hamiltonians/Federalists. The party came to power with the election of Jefferson in 1801.

You guys are setting me up with softballs. That was way too easy to counter.

The part of Jefferson's party that makes it *not* classically modern Republican can be found in Jefferson's Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom. It was a masterful work, and the seed kernel for the federal policy of separation of church and state. This was a great example of Jefferson's social liberalism.

Neither fish nor fowl.

- Bill

[Glenn]

What exactly did you counter? You included a longer excerpt from one of the sources I used and it continues to distinguish Jefferson's party as separate from the modern Republican Party. Thanks for the support!

do you *really* see Democrats fighting for states' rights

Exactly the point! Just as the Republican Party has changed drastically since Lincoln, so to has the Democratic Party changed drastically since its founding on Jefferson's principles. That does not change the origins of either though, no matter how much you may not like it.

Regarding states' rights, Jefferson went overboard with some of his shenanigans in that respect, particularly the "Kentucky Resolutions" that he authored or co-authored while Vice President (secretly, because he would have been charged with treason if his involvement had come to light). If these and the "Virginia Resolution" (authored secretly by James Madison, co-founder with Jefferson of the Democratic-Republican Party) had passed there was concern that civil war and/or the dissolution of the country would result. Fortunately most at the time realized the danger giving the states too much power over the federal government posed to the long-term continuance of the country and the states, it had not been that long since they had replaced the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution just for that reason. All other states thoroughly rejected Jefferson and Hamilton's attempts. The issue divided Jeffersonian Democrats, not all of whom agreed with Jefferson's views about states rights.

[Bill Glasheen]

Regarding states' rights, Jefferson went overboard with some of his shenanigans in that respect, particularly the "Kentucky Resolutions" that he authored or co-authored while Vice President (secretly, because he would have been charged with treason if his involvement had come to light). If these and the "Virginia Resolution" (authored secretly by James Madison, co-founder with Jefferson of the Democratic-Republican Party) had passed there was concern that civil war and/or the dissolution of the country would result. Fortunately most at the time realized the danger giving the states too much power over the federal government posed to the long-term continuance of the country and the states, it had not been that long since they had replaced the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution just for that reason. All other states thoroughly rejected Jefferson and Hamilton's attempts. The issue divided Jeffersonian Democrats, not all of whom agreed with Jefferson's views about states rights.

These are opinions, Glenn, and not facts.

There is a constant dynamic tension between the federal vs. the state powers. There is no "right" way to do it. There is only the way it ends up, based on what the voters want and how the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of various laws. You're implication that Jefferson's wishes were "treasonous" is fiction.

You want vitriole? Listen to those angry at Obama's overreach of federal powers with Obamacare. It passed the Supreme Court not because the justices ruled it legal to impose a federal mandate. Rather the justices ruled that Congress had the right to tax, and individuals still had the right to choose to participate - or not. An interesting twist on all this is that the entire thing can be rendered impotent by reducing or eliminating the tax. Certainly the very healthy/wealthy can choose to "self fund" and just pay the small tax imposed on them.

This dynamic tension between federal and state powers will never end, and will never stay static.

Back to my original point...

I'm quite familiar with the book you cited. I've read it, and am not impressed by it. Somehow we're to presume there's a universal opinion that we're all to subscribe to. Ain't gonna happen. The battle between various forces exist to protect the rights of various minority interests in this country. As George Will is want to say, the Founding Fathers designed not an efficient government, but rather a *safe* government. Gridlock is virtue and not vice.

- Bill

[Glenn]

These are opinions, Glenn, and not facts.

Sure, that is mostly what is said on here!

There is a constant dynamic tension between the federal vs. the state powers. There is no "right" way to do it. There is only the way it ends up, based on what the voters want and how the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of various laws.

Exactly, I have commented on the end-product nature of politics, economics, etc on numerous occasions.

You're implication that Jefferson's wishes were "treasonous" is fiction.

Not wishes, actions; and I cannot take credit for documenting the seriousness of those actions:

Jefferson's biographer Dumas Malone argued that the Kentucky resolution might have gotten Jefferson impeached for treason, had his actions become known at the time.

You want vitriole? Listen to those angry at Obama's overreach of federal powers with Obamacare. It passed the Supreme Court not because the justices ruled it legal to impose a federal mandate. Rather the justices ruled that Congress had the right to tax, and individuals still had the right to choose to participate - or not. An interesting twist on all this is that the entire thing can be rendered impotent by reducing or eliminating the tax. Certainly the very healthy/wealthy can choose to "self fund" and just pay the small tax imposed on them.

You're becoming a one-issue broken record on this Bill, don't neglect all the other issues worth complaining about.

This dynamic tension between federal and state powers will never end, and will never stay static.

Back to my original point...

I'm quite familiar with the book you cited. I've read it, and am not impressed by it. Somehow we're to presume that there's a universal opinion that we're all to ascribe to. Ain't gonna happen. And the battle between various forces exist to protect the rights of various minority interests in this country. As George Will is want to say, the Founders designed not an efficient government, but rather a *safe* government. Gridlock is virtue and not vice.

I am sooooo glad few Americans share your love affair with gridlock!

That book and the exasperation it represents may not speak to you, but it strikes a cord with many who are concerned about how gridlock and the corporate-led party interests fueling it are weakening the U.S. What you are not seeing is that there is a segment of the population who are Americans first and Kentuckians or Virginians or Democrats or Republicans or whatever second, if that, and we are fed up with what all this division is doing to our country.

[Bill Glasheen]

You're becoming a one-issue broken record on this Bill, don't neglect all the other issues worth complaining about.

1) I am a published health services researcher, and am employed by a Fortune 100 health insurer which does business both in the commercial and Medicare Advantage sector. I've worked in the field for 20 years. I know more about health care delivery (and medicine as well) than Obama and Pelosi and Reid combined. Yea, I have an opinion or two on the matter.

Don't bother asking Nancy. She's still reading what they passed.

2) I'm just getting started.

That book and the exasperation it represents may not speak to you, but it strikes a cord with many who are concerned about how gridlock and the corporate-led party interests fueling it are weakening the U.S.

Careful... Give you enough cord and you'll hang yourself.

*Corporate* led party interests? Really???

So the global warmi... excuse me... climate change religion worshipers attempting to hold our economy hostage with carbon penalties are driven by *corporate* interests? Wow!!! Gotta watch out for those corporate Sierra Club folks, and the corporate environmental scientists (in search of more government grant money to support their alarmist predictions) and those corporations protesting on the streets in Wall Street.

What you are not seeing is that there is a segment of the population who are Americans first and Kentuckians or Virginians or Democrats or Republicans or whatever second, if that, and we are fed up with what all this division is doing to our country.

Lucky for you, the Founding Fathers formed a government with two legislative branches and an executive branch and checks and balances and vetoes and judicial rulings and veto overrides, etc. Our Founding Fathers created not an efficient government, but a safe government. That protects you from those dag nabbit yahoos who consider themselves Nebraskans and Kentuckians and capitalists and socialists and Teapartiers first, and Americans second. For you, gridlock is virtue and not vice.

What a country!

- Bill

[Valkenar]

1) I am a published health services researcher, and am employed by a Fortune 100 health insurer which does business both in the commercial and Medicare Advantage sector. I've worked in the field for 20 years. I know more about health care delivery (and medicine as well) than Obama and Pelosi and Reid combined. Yea, I have an opinion or two on the matter.

I don't doubt your expertise, but I think your vision of what makes a healthcare system great is different from what some of us think. You have a pro-business bias and you're pretty dismissive of people you perceive as being stupid.

[Bill Glasheen]

Justin, you make it fun to get up in the morning.

I don't doubt your expertise, but I think your vision of what makes a healthcare system great is different from what some of us think.

Whether that is true or not is neither here nor there. We come to The Dojo Roundtable to debate. If we all thought alike, we'd have nothing to do other than tell each other how brilliant our points of view are.

you're pretty dismissive of people you perceive as being stupid.

And your point is???

I admit to some prejudices in life. I am prejudiced against stupid people. Mostly it's a prejudice against people who are emotionally stupid. I can tolerate and in fact enjoy people who aren't well educated or who aren't the sharpest tool in the shed. But people competing for Darwin Awards? Guilty as charged, my friend.

You have a pro-business bias

You may be inappropriately stereotyping me.

You do realize that I spent time in academia, right? After my doctorate, I did a 4-year faculty stint in cardiology at UVa. I was part of a majorly Type A research team in both cardiology and cardiothoracic surgery which got lots of AHA and NIH grants and did good things for mankind. I wouldn't be half the health services researcher I am today without the hundreds of open heart surgeries I did in the lab.

Then I went over to the dark side.

But even then, one of my colleagues at UVa got me a faculty position in plastic surgery so I could continue my academia work while a researcher in the health insurance industry.

In any case, it gives me a pretty broad perspective. And having successfully written a few of my own research grants, I know all about the grant writing and publishing game that the environmental scientists are involved in with the whole climate change business. I was also very good friends with the Virginia State Climatologist back then (Pat Michaels) who - along with more than a few esteemed scientists - have called some of the climate change researchers on their bad mathematical modeling and "science."

So, Justin... I am scathing of people who smoke because I used to smoke a pack of Marlboro a day, and had the cahones to quit cold turkey. I am scathing of bad science and scientists because I have 30 some odd publications in biomedical engineering, cardiology, surgery, epidemiology, and health services research. I've spoken at many scientific meetings. I've seen bad science and I've personally witnessed fraud.

In other words, I've got the credentials to call BS in academia when I see it. That doesn't necessarily make me one of those bad, bad business people types - even though I've evolved to being a fiscal conservative. (I'm still socially liberal-leaning.)

For the record... I don't flatter myself that much - in spite of rattling off credentials. My abilities are dwarfed by many I've met in my life. *That* is what keeps me going.

- Bill